BA103 returns to LHR - 7700

[MATELO]

Landed not to long ago.

[FlyingColours1]

Did you pick this up on flightradar24?

Any news yet?

[Scott C]

Snap! ;)

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/545496-speedbird-103-problem.html

[bizchaser]

I saw it overhead the threshold of rwy 26 at LTN heading toward St Albans at 5000ft gear down

[Large fries]

Apparently smoke in the cockpit

[BOAC]

That'll be the large fries, then.

[Large fries]

Cheeky but funny :O

[Dgjones10]

Was looking at FlightRadar and noticed that BAW103 (G-BNWC) was squarking 7700.
Looked at its flightpath and it had left Heathrow at 1815 and had reached Manchester enroute to Calgary when it made a turn passing over Liverpool before heading back south. I picked it up over Hinckley at about 14000 feet. It then descended at 2000 ft per minute until it got to 8000 ft where it remained until near Heathrow, It did not join the pattern for the left runway , which was being used for arrivals but landed on the right runway at 1955.
Anyone know the reason?

[OldLurker]

Aviation Herald (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=478b69e6) sez "crew reported smoke in the cockpit about 140nm northwest of London (almost over Liverpool) and returned to London Heathrow for a safe landing on Heathrow's runway 27R. Responding emergency services found no trace of fire or heat. The passengers disembarked normally."

I guess it can't have been very smoky or they'd have put it down quicker (Manchester?). Maybe we'll get an AAIB report in due course.

[C152_driver]

I saw them come over my house in North Herts, low and gear down (which is what prompted me to look on FR24).


So, idle curiosity question to the pros: Why gear down so far from LHR? I'm guessing they wanted to burn fuel off to get lighter, so went low-level and high-drag? As I said, just idle curiosity and from a position of deep ignorance...

[toro]

Correct. NWC doesn't have fuel dump fitted so attempting to reduce the landing weight as much as possible.

[C152_driver]

Ah! Thank you.

[ACMS]

1/ I thought all 767-300ER's ( indeed all 767's ) came fitted with fuel dump as standard?

2/ with smoke you wouldn't bother to wait for max landing weight anyway.......

LAND ASAP

[DaveReidUK]

I thought all 767-300ER's ( indeed all 767's ) came fitted with fuel dump as standard?

Some do. Some don't.

[Wirbelsturm]

2/ with smoke you wouldn't bother to wait for max landing weight anyway.......

Depends upon the severity, the source if it can be located and whether or not the smoke and fume checklist isolated the problem.

Much better to have the aircraft back at main base if possible both for the passengers and the engineers.

If the checklist takes enough time to get you back fine but, in general I would agree that the landing weight is pretty irrelevant in a smoke filled cockpit.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<< I guess all must have been OK because it went straight over the top of central London.>>

And what would be the alternative?

[Wirbelsturm]

Apart from the operating crew and those in receipt of the ASR no-one knows what caused the smoke and fumes. (Probably only the engineers know at the moment! :-) )

In most Boeings some of the cockpit air comes from the avionics cooling bay and thus will pick up anything that might overheat. The smoke and fumes checklist is designed to isolate various systems not critical to the immediate task of flying the aeroplane in order to stop/reduce the emission of fumes/smoke.

If the checklist is successful then you will have reduced the smoke problem and be left with an aircraft with potentially degraded secondary systems but one that is perfectly flyable.

Hence there is no reason why, in those circumstances, you should not return to your main operating base for the convenience of your customers. Even if that means going 'straight over the top of central London' in a serviceable aircraft on a standard approach to Heathrow. :}

[Skipness One Echo]

And what would be the alternative?
Not flying over Central London. Gatwick and Stansted have lots of grass at both ends.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

But the one person who decides is the man at the front with 4 rings. If the airport authority so wishes it can ask ATC to transmit a message asking the captain to consider alternatives if a blocked runway may result but the captain has the final say and rightly so.

[Wirbelsturm]

Not flying over Central London. Gatwick and Stansted have lots of grass at both ends.

Both single runway commercial operations, also include Luton in that, who would just 'love' to have the possibility of their runways taken out in order to prevent an aircraft making an approach to Heathrow! Whilst they will obviously take you there would be searching questions behind your decision making process.

Command decision was taken to return, perfectly sensible.

[DaveReidUK]

But the one person who decides is the man at the front with 4 rings. If the airport authority so wishes it can ask ATC to transmit a message asking the captain to consider alternatives if a blocked runway may result but the captain has the final say and rightly so.ATC are also expected to use their own judgement, at least according to the AAIB:

"The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) should review the guidance provided in the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) Part 1 and Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 475 (The Directory Of CAA Approved Organisations) and consider whether ATC unit Training for Unusual Circumstances and Emergencies (TRUCE) plans adequately prepare controllers to handle aircraft in emergency, and in particular, whether sufficient guidance is provided on the avoidance of built-up areas when vectoring aircraft in emergency. Where considered necessary, this guidance should be amended as soon as practicable." [my emphases]

(Safety Recommendation made as part of the N481EV investigation)

[BOAC]

Let's just suppose the flight was aborted because the crew did not want to sit for hours in fumes and become more Richard Westgates. Let's suppose they managed to isolate whatever caused 'the smoke' and have effectively a functioning aircraft. Whilst I am totally against the routing of aircraft with bits hanging off or on fire over London, I cannot see the problem this time based on what we know at present.

[Bengerman]

Not flying over Central London. Gatwick and Stansted have lots of grass at both ends.

And what use is grass to a modern airliner with fully functioning landing gear?

[C152_driver]

All will doubtless be revealed in the fullness of time, but it all seemed to go slightly pear-shaped rather close to Manchester. I think it's a reasonable assumption that if either flight crew had envisaged a fiery death in the near future, they'd have dumped it down there and damn the torpedoes.


Given that they didn't, let's grant them the rationality to say "It's under control, but let's not press on to Canananananada over that large stretch of water. Let's get this sorted out". No major hurry, but it would be good to get down somewhere. Being lighter would be good. Drop the gear, go to a flight level where the engines burn more fuel, and get somewhere that the paying punters can be sorted out quickly at.


Which is all rather professional. no?

[Lone_Ranger]

Test run?....

[DaveReidUK]

Well, maybe, going around as much of the built-up areas as possible and joining final for 27L from the south, say a little to the east of RichmondCame in over the Emirates Stadium, Aldwych, Buckingham Palace, Stamford Bridge, established on the 27R (not 27L) localizer overhead Fulham Broadway.

[parabellum]

It was probably the crew meals in the forward oven that did it. ;)

[doublesix]

For goodness sake, two pages of 'why's' and 'what if's' over an incident which nobody on here knows the true facts!! The Captain made his decision on what HE KNEW. End of. If he needed to land in Manchester he would have, and Manchester has two runways, so disruption yes but airport closure no. He obviously went to Heathrow because it was safe to do so.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

doublesix.. Well said.

[BOAC]

For goodness sake, two pages of 'why's' and 'what if's' over an incident which nobody on here knows the true facts!! - new to PPRune, are you?:O

[DaveReidUK]

At Heathrow alone, a departing aircraft making an unplanned return happens roughly once a week, so just be grateful that there aren't even more of these ambulance-chasing posts.